ADVERTISEMENT

Thoughts on recruiting....

It's beaten to death because it's been answered many times and the replies are always the same
Big name coaches wouldn't come here
Up and coming coaches all suck compared to TC, watch

First call is of course to Stevens after he says no
Marshall
Mack
TBennett
Kruger

Pick any of them and instant upgrade
I'd make the call to Stevens but likely it would be Marshall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shirtsandskins
You said he still recruited Indiana and you were shown that was not true then you come out with other excuses. Just like the 2016 class that was not very good so you have to look elsewhere and that is why it is good to have a wider recruiting base.
My God, Scott, do you try to be anal - or does it come naturally?

How many times have we said on this board over the last 4-5 months in that Knight's recruiting base was Indiana, Ohio and Illinois - but focused first and foremost on Indiana? Did Knight get EVERY Indiana HS player? No - but he got more than his fair share. And Paterfamilias made a great point on the lack of High D1 prospects from the mid / late 90's.

IU was down for a lot of reasons during Knight's last years in Bloomington, but a soft recruiting base was a major part of it.
 
Knight landed 2 of 10 Top 75 players from Indiana (1993-1998)
Crean landed 5 of 20 Top 75 players from Indiana (2011-2016)
*Edited to include Perea who RSCI has from Alabama

Knight landed 2 of 2 McD AA's from Indiana (1993-1998)
Crean landed 3 of 11 McD AA's from Indiana (2011-2016)

Unreal to think that even in Knight's WORST years at IU, he could STILL out-recruit Crean.

Even more unreal is that after seeing these numbers, these FACTS, some will still come on here and defend how good of a recruiter Crean is.
 
Unreal to think that even in Knight's WORST years at IU, he could STILL out-recruit Crean.

Even more unreal is that after seeing these numbers, these FACTS, some will still come on here and defend how good of a recruiter Crean is.

I'm actually one that does think Crean has done a good job recruiting, particularly if you consider his obvious long term goal. Crean has set out to make IU a national player in recruiting as opposed to a regional player per it's storied tradition. It should seem easy enough to accomplish that goal when your program has an arena littered with championship banners, but I think circumstance and timing has made it more difficult a task than it would seem to be.

During most of the Knight era college basketball was a game of regional recruiting. Knight, perched in the hotbed of basketball talent, had very little reason to spread his recruiting wings. Just as the game started to evolve into the national recruiting paradigm, Indiana had started to decline due in part to a talent drought in the region. The in-house squabbling and Knight's disdain for recruiting were also having profound effects just as the landscape of the game was really shifting. Indiana was treading water and the bell lap had long since rung.

Fast forward through all the mess that led to Crean's arrival and Indiana's prestige was at an all time low. The programs that Indiana had kept company with had spurted well clear, and Indiana was suddenly 15 years behind in establishing itself as more than just a regional recruiting power. To add to the misery, lets get the ball rolling with a roster full of walk-on's while saddled with probation.

I think Crean has made good progress toward his goal. He was bound to lose a lot of recruiting battles along the way, but I think his first goal was to put Indiana into the national recruiting conversation. Finishing 2nd and 3rd for prized recruits didn't pay immediate dividends, but I think he's on the verge of breaking through.

This years team is one I really like. I believe Davis is underrated and will be the best player on the team by seasons end. I love Newkirk! When I saw him play his frosh year at Pitt, I thought he would be a future star and frankly I'm more excited to have him at the point than I was Yogi. Josh, I think, is the kind of player that can score 8 points and be the most valuable player on the court. Granted that 2nd year at Pitt was a disaster, but I think he was trying to play a roll that doesn't fit his game and he unraveled. I could be really, really wrong, but I think Crean has put himself in position to do something great because of a terrific roster.

The only question is style of play imo. If it all comes together though, recruiting won't be a problem going forward.

My post earlier was mostly in defense of Knight (and just general info regarding in-state recruiting). The man had his issues, but he was a once in a lifetime basketball coach. He was maybe doing some of his greatest coaching ever during those first 4 years at Texas Tech. Those teams had the "on paper" talent of Big Ten bottom feeder, but they were fun to watch. Some don't get it and that is too bad for them
 
I'm not saying IU should take ONLY Indiana kids. Not at all.

But with the talent this state produces, just WHY wouldn't you want to take advantage of that?

Knight mainly recruited Indiana, Illinois, Ohio and some Michigan. If you look at Izzo's recruiting, it's very similar. Isn't it funny how Izzo has made MSU a consistent winner? I wonder why . . .

They also have Izzo.
 
I'm actually one that does think Crean has done a good job recruiting, particularly if you consider his obvious long term goal. Crean has set out to make IU a national player in recruiting as opposed to a regional player per it's storied tradition. It should seem easy enough to accomplish that goal when your program has an arena littered with championship banners, but I think circumstance and timing has made it more difficult a task than it would seem to be.

During most of the Knight era college basketball was a game of regional recruiting. Knight, perched in the hotbed of basketball talent, had very little reason to spread his recruiting wings. Just as the game started to evolve into the national recruiting paradigm, Indiana had started to decline due in part to a talent drought in the region. The in-house squabbling and Knight's disdain for recruiting were also having profound effects just as the landscape of the game was really shifting. Indiana was treading water and the bell lap had long since rung.

Fast forward through all the mess that led to Crean's arrival and Indiana's prestige was at an all time low. The programs that Indiana had kept company with had spurted well clear, and Indiana was suddenly 15 years behind in establishing itself as more than just a regional recruiting power. To add to the misery, lets get the ball rolling with a roster full of walk-on's while saddled with probation.

I think Crean has made good progress toward his goal. He was bound to lose a lot of recruiting battles along the way, but I think his first goal was to put Indiana into the national recruiting conversation. Finishing 2nd and 3rd for prized recruits didn't pay immediate dividends, but I think he's on the verge of breaking through.

This years team is one I really like. I believe Davis is underrated and will be the best player on the team by seasons end. I love Newkirk! When I saw him play his frosh year at Pitt, I thought he would be a future star and frankly I'm more excited to have him at the point than I was Yogi. Josh, I think, is the kind of player that can score 8 points and be the most valuable player on the court. Granted that 2nd year at Pitt was a disaster, but I think he was trying to play a roll that doesn't fit his game and he unraveled. I could be really, really wrong, but I think Crean has put himself in position to do something great because of a terrific roster.

The only question is style of play imo. If it all comes together though, recruiting won't be a problem going forward.

My post earlier was mostly in defense of Knight (and just general info regarding in-state recruiting). The man had his issues, but he was a once in a lifetime basketball coach. He was maybe doing some of his greatest coaching ever during those first 4 years at Texas Tech. Those teams had the "on paper" talent of Big Ten bottom feeder, but they were fun to watch. Some don't get it and that is too bad for them
How does finishing second or third for a recruit in 2014 pay dividends today?

Newkirk isn't a shooter, how does his game fit into TCs system that demands shooting?
 
How does finishing second or third for a recruit in 2014 pay dividends today?

Newkirk isn't a shooter, how does his game fit into TCs system that demands shooting?

It may not be very accurate, but the idea I was driving at is similar to that of a candidate for office who runs and loses 3 times before finally being elected. Eventually people start thinking he must be good candidate just because they've seen his name a lot the last 15 years.

Indiana, in it's prime, wasn't a consideration for kids outside of the connected states. Somebody had to get out and knock doors to get the word out Indiana wants you. I'm not even sure that I think it was the best plan, but I think it was the plan. All of the recruiting dollars that Crean has spent has been a marketing strategy as much as a recruiting strategy. Once again, I'm just speculating, but it seems pretty reasonable to me.

As for Newkirk, I think he'll defend and facilitate... Chris Reynolds with a better shot. Crean may fail to use him properly, but I think he would be fantastic for Knight. I only saw him play two or three times as frosh and I thought he would eventually be a star for Pitt. I think he can bring some of the things that we have been lacking and then some.
 
Is that too violent for you? How would you characterize it? They won the conference by multiple games and it wasn't really that close? I will go along with that. Rephrased below:

They won the conference by multiple games and it wasn't really that close.


We also had probably the easiest schedule ever. First half was loaded with all the bad teams and the second half we played most of the good teams only once and most of those were at home.
 
It may not be very accurate, but the idea I was driving at is similar to that of a candidate for office who runs and loses 3 times before finally being elected. Eventually people start thinking he must be good candidate just because they've seen his name a lot the last 15 years.

Indiana, in it's prime, wasn't a consideration for kids outside of the connected states. Somebody had to get out and knock doors to get the word out Indiana wants you. I'm not even sure that I think it was the best plan, but I think it was the plan. All of the recruiting dollars that Crean has spent has been a marketing strategy as much as a recruiting strategy. Once again, I'm just speculating, but it seems pretty reasonable to me.

As for Newkirk, I think he'll defend and facilitate... Chris Reynolds with a better shot. Crean may fail to use him properly, but I think he would be fantastic for Knight. I only saw him play two or three times as frosh and I thought he would eventually be a star for Pitt. I think he can bring some of the things that we have been lacking and then some.
I don't think it's a marketing strategy. I have always seen it as TC sees the big dogs doing it so he thinks he can...so he does

I truly believe that he thought he could be UK-lite. Large classes, high turnover rate, national recruiting...I think the class that put this in his head was also the class that proved he couldn't do it....the movement. When he had to replace so many players he found that he couldn't get the high quality replacements. Cal was getting WCS at the bottom of his class and we were lucky to get Emmett Holt

Hopefully you are right and it's part of a grand plan, but TC and long term anything don't seem to go together(unless we're talking contracts)
 
Depends on what you're trying to gauge - efficiency of a player or comparing styles of play.

Teams that want to play fast - like IU, UNC and UK - will have stats that likely will seem skewered from teams like Michigan St, Duke, etc . . . simply because a given style presents more opportunities. But compared side-by-side, they can indicate how well a program is able to execute a system against the results of teams playing a similar style.

We agree, then that rebounds per game isn't a useful metric regarding efficiency of a player. But I disagree that rebounds per game is useful comparing teams that want to play a similar style, and I also disagree with the premise that IU and UNC are comparable in terms of style.

With regard to comparing teams who play similar styles, there are still WAY too many factors that cause noise in the data. Most notably, defensive efficiency and shooting percentage, among others. So, even if I agreed that UNC and IU want to play the same style, the fact that IU was a good shooting team and only okay, overall, on defense, will depress their team rebounding numbers because of lack of opportunity. UNC, on the other hand, was a good defensive team with okay shooting, causing more opportunity, and noise, in the data.

All I've ever asked is WHY you wouldn't use pace-neutral stats...you've finally answered me, and even without personal insults. Thanks. I think there's more noise in the stats you used regarding rebounds and turnovers, and they are therefore less reliable than pace-neutral stats. I was interested to find out what your analysis would be using pace-neutral stats in those categories, but sadly, I think the thread got deleted anyway.

In terms of "playing fast," here are UNC's pace rankings the last 5 seasons: 73, 15, 19, 15, 10. An average of 26. IU's are: 151, 72, 63, 109, 108. An average of 101.

The difference, in terms of possessions per game, is 2, 3, 2, 3, 5, for an average of 3 possessions per game, in case you wonder if it makes a difference. There is some rounding going on there...didn't feel like using decimal places in my head. Again, an example of the noise that your per game stats can't account for--but not the only example.

To be sure, both teams play faster than average. But the evidence doesn't suggest that IU plays like UNC, or that they "want" to play like them. There are many teams, mostly small schools in lesser conferences, that want to play like UNC. Some even play faster. IU isn't one of them.

It's been awhile since I looked at them now, but I believe generally pace-neutral stats support the notion that 1) Crean is a championship caliber OFFENSIVE coach. 2) Crean's teams rebound well. 3) Crean is capable of coaching championship caliber defense, but has not done so consistently, or even half the time. 4) Crean's teams turn the ball over more than they should.

In terms of what I am counting as championship caliber, I call top 40 in Kenpom efficiency championship caliber, because no team has won the national championship in the one and done era, without being top 40 in BOTH categories, I believe. In fact, the winner is usually top 20 in both, but UConn's outlier national championship a couple years ago pushed the outer limit of what kind of team can be considered a national championship caliber team.

If these four conclusions, which are decidedly mixed, make me a "Crean apologist" or "settler" or whatever else, so be it. I'm not exactly giving out a ringing endorsement for a top tier coach, and I've never given him a ringing endorsement. I just prefer the discussion be honest and fair, rather than using noisy stats that might suit an agenda. You might recall, I didn't even know what the results would be when I first brought the issue up, and had to repeatedly insist that they might even help your argument.

And, it's been awhile since I looked at some of this stuff, so if my memory is off on any of it, feel free to correct me.
 
Now let's look at what I actually said

I said I want consistency, not a cherry picked version of "somewhat consistent"
IU/TC 11th/5th/1st/9th/7th/1st...no matter how you cherry pick the years, that isn't consistent

I said Smarter scheduling,
Teams ranked over 200 off the schedule replaced with under 200. Preferably Indy schools

I said I want Sweet 16s to not be the high point, and it is the high point

I said I want top ten classes, you reply with we are loaded with the 22nd class...huh?

I want local players because I've always enjoyed following those guys through HS to IU. It gives IU a special connection to Indiana. Just like with football players in Ohio/OSU, and Texas/UT
(Note: I didn't say to only recruit Indy kids)

Yes TCs good years are very similar to RMKs downcycle years, that we can agree on
How many Indiana kids have been on national championships teams the last decade. i don't know the answer but i really can't remember very many if any that were on national championship teams. If they are so key to winning championships why haven't more Indiana kids been on championship teams.
 
I'm actually one that does think Crean has done a good job recruiting, particularly if you consider his obvious long term goal. Crean has set out to make IU a national player in recruiting as opposed to a regional player per it's storied tradition. It should seem easy enough to accomplish that goal when your program has an arena littered with championship banners, but I think circumstance and timing has made it more difficult a task than it would seem to be.

During most of the Knight era college basketball was a game of regional recruiting. Knight, perched in the hotbed of basketball talent, had very little reason to spread his recruiting wings. Just as the game started to evolve into the national recruiting paradigm, Indiana had started to decline due in part to a talent drought in the region. The in-house squabbling and Knight's disdain for recruiting were also having profound effects just as the landscape of the game was really shifting. Indiana was treading water and the bell lap had long since rung.

Fast forward through all the mess that led to Crean's arrival and Indiana's prestige was at an all time low. The programs that Indiana had kept company with had spurted well clear, and Indiana was suddenly 15 years behind in establishing itself as more than just a regional recruiting power. To add to the misery, lets get the ball rolling with a roster full of walk-on's while saddled with probation.

I think Crean has made good progress toward his goal. He was bound to lose a lot of recruiting battles along the way, but I think his first goal was to put Indiana into the national recruiting conversation. Finishing 2nd and 3rd for prized recruits didn't pay immediate dividends, but I think he's on the verge of breaking through.

This years team is one I really like. I believe Davis is underrated and will be the best player on the team by seasons end. I love Newkirk! When I saw him play his frosh year at Pitt, I thought he would be a future star and frankly I'm more excited to have him at the point than I was Yogi. Josh, I think, is the kind of player that can score 8 points and be the most valuable player on the court. Granted that 2nd year at Pitt was a disaster, but I think he was trying to play a roll that doesn't fit his game and he unraveled. I could be really, really wrong, but I think Crean has put himself in position to do something great because of a terrific roster.

The only question is style of play imo. If it all comes together though, recruiting won't be a problem going forward.

My post earlier was mostly in defense of Knight (and just general info regarding in-state recruiting). The man had his issues, but he was a once in a lifetime basketball coach. He was maybe doing some of his greatest coaching ever during those first 4 years at Texas Tech. Those teams had the "on paper" talent of Big Ten bottom feeder, but they were fun to watch. Some don't get it and that is too bad for them
That is what I have been trying to say but you just say it a lot better than I do. Back in the 80's it was a lot easier to recruit locally and still compete but with the game being more nationally you are competing with more teams for recruits.
 
I don't think it's a marketing strategy. I have always seen it as TC sees the big dogs doing it so he thinks he can...so he does

I truly believe that he thought he could be UK-lite. Large classes, high turnover rate, national recruiting...I think the class that put this in his head was also the class that proved he couldn't do it....the movement. When he had to replace so many players he found that he couldn't get the high quality replacements. Cal was getting WCS at the bottom of his class and we were lucky to get Emmett Holt

Hopefully you are right and it's part of a grand plan, but TC and long term anything don't seem to go together(unless we're talking contracts)

I think you are right about the ultimate goal. I just don't think TC is so dumb to think he could just start being UK-lite straight out of the box. I don't want to be UK-lite anymore than you do, but I'm afraid most IU fans today would be over the moon with that prospect. Crean will probably do it if he can and he may be closer than you think is all I'm saying.
 
How many Indiana kids have been on national championships teams the last decade. i don't know the answer but i really can't remember very many if any that were on national championship teams. If they are so key to winning championships why haven't more Indiana kids been on championship teams.
Where did I say any of that? I think I gave my reasoning for wanting Indy kids...did you skip over that part

I'm telling you upfront, stay on topic, don't make things up and attribute them to me, and don't say two opposites things and pretend you didn't or we wrong be talking
 
I think you are right about the ultimate goal. I just don't think TC is so dumb to think he could just start being UK-lite straight out of the box. I don't want to be UK-lite anymore than you do, but I'm afraid most IU fans today would be over the moon with that prospect. Crean will probably do it if he can and he may be closer than you think is all I'm saying.
It wasn't right out of the box, the movement was recruited in year four during the number one season. TCs ego would definitely lead him to believe he was only going to up and up
 
Where did I say any of that? I think I gave my reasoning for wanting Indy kids...did you skip over that part

I'm telling you upfront, stay on topic, don't make things up and attribute them to me, and don't say two opposites things and pretend you didn't or we wrong be talking
Everybody on here said they want to win championships and everyone thinks that best chance for us is to have Indiana kids. If having Indiana kids mean it helps winning championships then why hasn't more Indiana ids own championships.
 
Everybody on here said they want to win championships and everyone thinks that best chance for us is to have Indiana kids. If having Indiana kids mean it helps winning championships then why hasn't more Indiana ids own championships.
Scott don't quote me and then ask me a question about something I didn't say
 
It wasn't right out of the box, the movement was recruited in year four during the number one season. TCs ego would definitely lead him to believe he was only going to up and up

The Movement, on paper was only slightly better than the Watford, Creek, Hulls, Elston, Muniru, Capo class.

Watford and Creek were rated equally to Hollowell and Perea. Muniru was rated a bit better than Jurkin. Elston was an extra 4* (Scout & Rivals) that the 2012 class couldn't match. The only difference in the 2 classes was Yogi was rated #25 overall and Hulls #74.
 
The Movement, on paper was only slightly better than the Watford, Creek, Hulls, Elston, Muniru, Capo class.

Watford and Creek were rated equally to Hollowell and Perea. Muniru was rated a bit better than Jurkin. Elston was an extra 4* (Scout & Rivals) that the 2012 class couldn't match. The only difference in the 2 classes was Yogi was rated #25 overall and Hulls #74.
In TCs mind Hollowell and HP were NBA players

My point is that the movement was his launching point, top ten class and the number one team...I think he thought he was farther ahead than he really was
 
With regard to comparing teams who play similar styles, there are still WAY too many factors that cause noise in the data. Most notably, defensive efficiency and shooting percentage, among others. So, even if I agreed that UNC and IU want to play the same style, the fact that IU was a good shooting team and only okay, overall, on defense, will depress their team rebounding numbers because of lack of opportunity. UNC, on the other hand, was a good defensive team with okay shooting, causing more opportunity, and noise, in the data.

That's the exact point I'm trying (or tried) to make.

UNC has better numbers because they recruit a high level of player than IU - and are better coached. Crean wants to play at a fast pace (I believe you even acknowledged that in a post a while back on another thread), but he doesn't do it as effectively as Roy Williams or John Calipari.

There are many ways to be successful at basketball. But whatever style or system you choose to employ, you HAVE to competent at enough of the elements of running a particular style/system to have consistent success. Sure, you will have ups and downs. But if you look at the stats I posted before, it's clear that Crean's best seasons equal the median success of Williams and Calipari.
 
That's the exact point I'm trying (or tried) to make.

UNC has better numbers because they recruit a high level of player than IU - and are better coached. Crean wants to play at a fast pace (I believe you even acknowledged that in a post a while back on another thread), but he doesn't do it as effectively as Roy Williams or John Calipari.

There are many ways to be successful at basketball. But whatever style or system you choose to employ, you HAVE to competent at enough of the elements of running a particular style/system to have consistent success. Sure, you will have ups and downs. But if you look at the stats I posted before, it's clear that Crean's best seasons equal the median success of Williams and Calipari.

I know that's the point you're TRYING to make. The trouble is, the data you've cited in support of that point doesn't prove your point, because there are other factors (including but not limited to the actual pace at which those teams have been playing) that can cause the statistical disparity you have cited. This is what I refer to when I mention noise in the data. You keep skipping that step. My point has been, and continues to be, that you've used noisy data, and continue to refer to it, rather than simply re-working your analysis with less noisy data.

Only you can say why. You suggest that it's because IU and UNC want to play the same style. Again, even if I accept that as true (which I don't), that doesn't change the fact that you've used noisy data to prove it. I certainly have heard Crean say he wants to play fast. I've never heard him say they want to play as fast as UNC or UK. I don't recall everything I've said on the matter, although I do recall saying IU played fast once, quite awhile ago, and being informed that they actually don't. So, I researched it, and discovered that I was wrong, and they really don't play that fast, notwithstanding Crean's claim to want to, which may be honest and may be subterfuge. What is clear is that IU hasn't played as fast as UNC, purposefully or otherwise.

Kentucky doesn't play fast either. Pace was 221, 251, 236, 131, and 161, the last 5 years. Average of 200. Slower than average for college basketball. Slow, by any definition. Again, your intermediate conclusion (they all play the same, fast) isn't supported by the data, and your final conclusion, while supported by data, isn't using data with the least noise, and you can't factor the noise out. Highlighting small portions of my previous post and taking them out of context doesn't change this, or refute it.

Use the best data. I suspect there's plenty of ammo there, probably moreso in the turnover department than the rebounding department. I'm pretty sure you can find it on the same website (team rankings) you linked in your original post.

For what it's worth, I've been working on an altogether different kind of statistical analysis of Crean recently, and you'll probably really like it if I ever get it done, because it's probably going to be pessimistic about Crean. But, I run my own business and I have a 7 month old, so...kinda busy.
 
I know that's the point you're TRYING to make. The trouble is, the data you've cited in support of that point doesn't prove your point, because there are other factors (including but not limited to the actual pace at which those teams have been playing) that can cause the statistical disparity you have cited. This is what I refer to when I mention noise in the data. You keep skipping that step. My point has been, and continues to be, that you've used noisy data, and continue to refer to it, rather than simply re-working your analysis with less noisy data.

Only you can say why. You suggest that it's because IU and UNC want to play the same style. Again, even if I accept that as true (which I don't), that doesn't change the fact that you've used noisy data to prove it. I certainly have heard Crean say he wants to play fast. I've never heard him say they want to play as fast as UNC or UK. I don't recall everything I've said on the matter, although I do recall saying IU played fast once, quite awhile ago, and being informed that they actually don't. So, I researched it, and discovered that I was wrong, and they really don't play that fast, notwithstanding Crean's claim to want to, which may be honest and may be subterfuge. What is clear is that IU hasn't played as fast as UNC, purposefully or otherwise.

Kentucky doesn't play fast either. Pace was 221, 251, 236, 131, and 161, the last 5 years. Average of 200. Slower than average for college basketball. Slow, by any definition. Again, your intermediate conclusion (they all play the same, fast) isn't supported by the data, and your final conclusion, while supported by data, isn't using data with the least noise, and you can't factor the noise out. Highlighting small portions of my previous post and taking them out of context doesn't change this, or refute it.

Use the best data. I suspect there's plenty of ammo there, probably moreso in the turnover department than the rebounding department. I'm pretty sure you can find it on the same website (team rankings) you linked in your original post.

For what it's worth, I've been working on an altogether different kind of statistical analysis of Crean recently, and you'll probably really like it if I ever get it done, because it's probably going to be pessimistic about Crean. But, I run my own business and I have a 7 month old, so...kinda busy.
You do realize how PACE is calculated, right? By possessions.

And there is not an official NCAA stat for possessions - they are estimated.

The whole pace argument because a chicken or egg discussion - which comes first. I understand why people try to use the kenpom-style stats, but in comparing styles I believe it has too many holes to be effective.
 
Would you be happier if Indiana were ranked worse than 8th in the "way-to-early" poll?

I have big news for you, Coach Crean is there for as long as he wants to be and he is going to get paid a lot of money. The alumni, season ticket holders, AD, trustees, and president are all on his side. You might want to hop on the bandwagon or, in the alternative, go be for Purdue or Kentucky or some or some other team.
I've been saying all alone as long as glass is around crean will never get fired
Now let's look at what I actually said

I said I want consistency, not a cherry picked version of "somewhat consistent"
IU/TC 11th/5th/1st/9th/7th/1st...no matter how you cherry pick the years, that isn't consistent

I said Smarter scheduling,
Teams ranked over 200 off the schedule replaced with under 200. Preferably Indy schools

I said I want Sweet 16s to not be the high point, and it is the high point

I said I want top ten classes, you reply with we are loaded with the 22nd class...huh?

I want local players because I've always enjoyed following those guys through HS to IU. It gives IU a special connection to Indiana. Just like with football players in Ohio/OSU, and Texas/UT
(Note: I didn't say to only recruit Indy kids)

Yes TCs good years are very similar to RMKs downcycle years, that we can agree on
.llc
In TCs mind Hollowell and HP were NBA players

My point is that the movement was his launching point, top ten class and the number one team...I think he thought he was farther ahead than he really was
Hanner was one of the most overrated recruits in iu history. He should never have been ranked in the rivals top 150. I thought jeremy would be alot better then he was
 
So if you were the AD at Indiana, you would fire Tom Crean today and hire Gregg Marshall?
If I were the AD, I'd have fired Tom Crean after last season.

Crean bought himself more time with winning the B1G RS title and advancing to the Sweet 16. But that cant be his high point - it has to be closer to the median. If I'm AD, I'm not paying you 3.5 mil to win RS titles and get to Sweet 16's every couple of years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChampsAgain
I am just curious. How is it beaten to death if no one can answer it?

Hypo: You are the AD and Tom Crean gets hit by a bus tonight. What person can I expect to be roaming the sidelines in Bloomington next November that will make Indiana better?

yay, you're back and degrading the job to fit the narrative again! I really do enjoy your IU world view -- there are NO coaches in the universe who would come to IU that could get past the sweet 16 and this is because...we haven't been elite in 20 years and....your opinion matters the most because of your many IU degrees.

Seriously, we've heard this one before. Move along. But please post a pic of your S16 replica ring before you do. Thanks in advance ;)
 
You do realize how PACE is calculated, right? By possessions.

And there is not an official NCAA stat for possessions - they are estimated.

The whole pace argument because a chicken or egg discussion - which comes first. I understand why people try to use the kenpom-style stats, but in comparing styles I believe it has too many holes to be effective.

Yes, I know.

You were happy to use the Team Ranking calculations for offensive and defensive efficiency, despite their alleged deficiencies. You realize those calculations are pace-neutral and must therefore include these pace-neutral estimations of possessions, right?

If you were really so concerned with those only being "estimated," you'd have used points per game, and points allowed per game, wouldn't you? Why is rebounds per game the most useful metric, but points per game isn't? The answer is, of course, neither of them are very good metrics.

What "holes" does factoring out pace create? It doesn't create any...it simply fills in one of the holes your metric has...namely, opportunity to rebound. What we've really fallen into is an "I believe" situation. You believe in the stats, regardless of noise, that support the thing you believe. I have explained several times the objective reasons why your statistics were flawed, but you most ignore those points.

Just for kicks, here are IU's pace neutral rebounding ranks for total rebounding percentage for the last 5 years: 22, 63, 4, 13, 39. Average of 28. Pretty good, regardless of the fact that they didn't do better than UNC when you average their counting stats. Contrary to your previous (and now deleted, I think) assertion, IU does stack up with those other teams in rebounding.

Turnovers? 266, 57, 330, 127, 123. Average of 181, I think. Blech. Below average for all of college basketball. Bad, by nearly any metric.

Like I said, plenty of ammo. And just to highlight how useless rebounds per game is as a metric, Villanova ranked 234th last year, and rode that crap rebounding to the title. Duke was 45th, the year before. Connecticut the year before that? 153. Louisville the year before? 59th. Kentucky the year they won? 15th. Average of 101. There's not much correlation between good teams and rebounds per game. It's not a useful metric.
 
Well since then it seems he has the team under control with all the off the court garbage. He also is coming off a big ten championship and he has us ranked in the early top for next season.
Nine months without an arrest...yay...depressing
 
The same thing that you did last spring/summer?
yes after getting upset with the off the court garbage I realized he was not going anywhere so I decided to back him since he is the coach at IU. Look if they would have fired him i would have backed that decision and backed whoever they would replaced him with.
 
ADVERTISEMENT